Is true gender equality possible

Is true gender equality possible?

A significant observation of our time is that the once-distinct differences between the man and the woman have greatly decreased. With the introduction of new technology signifying the dawn of the modern era, we humans seem to be very enthused about the idea of blurring the divide of male and female sex. As a result of the oppression towards women by our ancestors in the past, the revolution of today demands a refined new practise of gender equality. The demand may be ambitious and revolutionaries may be determined in making this idea real; however such an idea of equality is most probably a futile attempt to obliterate the distinct divide of gender, clearly defined by nature itself. Although practises may change and women may take part in activities once dominated by men; the limitations such as physical, psychological, sociological and mainly historical factors have been already defined, and these cannot be changed to bring about the gender equality.

Females have been treated as being below men for the past years of human civilisation, and thus it would be impossible to truly get rid of such a powerful idea, instilled unto the people of today. No matter how much we try to shield the young women of our world from the history of female oppression in our society, it would be impossible to destroy the sense of being second to males in their minds. Until the large part of the last century women have been controlled to a great extent by men. They were destined to tend the kitchen, remain chiefly uneducated, looking after household chores and do menial jobs considered which men were exempted from. Dating back to historical examples, the women were considered by Egyptians unfit for war and the pharaohs used their wives to carry on their blood line, and for magical advantages received through elaborate rituals during war. More recently in India, widows were forced to burn themselves in the flames of their cremated husbands and sacrifice themselves; whilst husbands could carry on with their lives even after the death of the wife. Although such examples seem far fetched and not occurring today, it is an inevitable fact that the women of today are well aware of such practices of the past. This consecutively gives them a sense of playing second fiddle to men; and until this lingering thought disappears, gender equality would be rendered impossible.

The physical limitations of women have by nature made them lower than men, and such an unfair allocation of strength makes the prospect of gender equality anything but tangible. Although in today’s world physical power would seem to be an unnecessary characteristic to possess, it represents the human extent of power. The symbol of strong arms and legs represents the will and courage of a person. From the beginning of a girl’s life she will always prove to be weaker than an average boy. She cannot imagine overpowering him, or being equal to him. And it is not always the idea of the girl but also the mind of the boy which introduces the prospect of actually overpowering the girl for her being weak. This instilled idea of the male being better than a female amongst the people in the society cannot be easily overcome. Even when it has been overcome by a person, it is apparently false. Hence the physical limitations of a women and the man’s power induces strong ideas of who is who in the social ladder; and always the male is higher. This metamorphoses into a psychological weakness of the society and eventually makes gender equality a figment of a revolutionary’s imagination.

The psychological weakness due to a symbolic weakness in physical strength allows men to gain an upper hand in political and sociological affairs in which women are denied a spot. A state of gender equality can only be attained when men and women are given equal rights in all activities of daily life, including political and sociological aspects of society. Women may now not be house wives and they may have begun working in fields which men used to dominate in such as engineering. However, the work of the kings will always remain so, for queens have never been fabled to wage war. Women leaders have been a very rare commodity in our society and increasingly so in history. There has never been a lady president for the all powerful United States. Females have never taken part in staging uprisings and revolutions in the long morbid years of bitter monarchy in Russia in the 1900s. They had never fought against colonial powers in any country for independence. The topic of patriotism itself has always been alien to women. Although I do not totally deny the fact that a few females might have taken part in political activities in the past and still are, but they are so violently subdued by males, that it would be rather impossible to notice their presence in the field. Politics, being the governance of our way of life, is in fact a very important aspect of our social living. Women who tend to history for inspiration will be disappointed when coming to politics; even then such inspired people are hard to come by; and even if they do, they will be duly subdued by males in the field.

The attention received by particular genders in various sectors of sporting, culture and media has remained by rigid rules and resistant conservatives making attaining gender equality very difficult. The very idea of us trying to preserve our culture by promoting it is a direct attack at obtaining gender equality. Sporting sectors are dominated ruthlessly by men. In the media, fashion news and gossips is directed greatly at women and sporting news, world affairs, business and sex at men. These rigid unwritten rules would require more than modern rebel culture and new technology to obliterate. For instance, the Grand Slam tennis finals for women is always on the Saturday and the men’s finals on Sunday, for apparent reasons. The men’s receive far greater prize money for winning their title. The sportsperson for the year has always been Roger Federer, Fernando Alonso, Tiger Woods, but never Martina Hingis, Annika Sorenstam, Anna Kournikova  or a female sportsperson. People are willing to watch men in certain sectors and women in others. These are immutable entities which will never give in to change. Even with modern technology, application forms will still have a column for gender.

Gender difference is analogous to racism. We try to avoid but in the back of our heads, at a corner of our hearts it resides silently and dictates our actions. The question has never been about the advantages and disadvantages, or the good and the bad of gender differences, but the possibility of attaining a united human race without a divide between males and females. Hence, we explore tirelessly upon our worlds to find a position of attaining gender equality; to unite males and females as one so as to save the females from the oppression of their counterparts. Yes, it may be for a good cause, but naturally this does not seem possible. Politically this does not seem correct. Actually this does not seem attainable; for here in the very country that we reside in (Singapore) National Service, a symbol of patriotism to our country, has by far been restricted to males alone. Are we as a country heading towards true gender equality?